The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority for preventive detention must be based on cogent material and is subject to judicial review.

JUDGMENT :

N.Kotiswar Singh,

1. Heard Mr. G.N. Shaheen, learned counsel assisted by Mr. Asif Nabi, appearing on behalf of appellant as also Mr. Zahid Ahmad Noor, learned GA, appearing on behalf of respondents.

2. The present appeal has been filed questioning the correctness of the judgment dated 12.06.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (Crl) No.157/2022 titled Jahangir Ahmad Wani versus UT of J&K, by which the challenge made by the detenue of his detention order no.15/DMP/PSA/22 dated 08.04.2022 was rejected.

3. Mr. G.N. Shaheen, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted before us that learned Single Judge, unfortunately, did not consider and deal with various grounds of challenge to the said detention order raised in the writ petition and the same was dismissed without proper application of mind by the learned Single Judge.

4. Be that as it may, he has submitted that otherwise also, the detention order cannot sustain judicial scrutiny for the following reasons: -

(i) First of all, it has been submitted that perusal of the detention order dated 08.04.2022 would indicate that it was not a detention order but a notice to detain the detainee as mentioned in the order of detention while furnishing a copy to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Pulwama for execution of the order as provided for under Section 9 of J&K Public Safety Act, 1978, in which it has been mentioned that notice of the order be given to the detainee Jahangir Ahmad Wani.

(ii) It has been further submitted that when so called detention order was issued, it did not accompany the other relevant materials on the basis of which the detention order was issued, which had prevented the petitioner from making effective representation which is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22 (5) of Constitution of India.

(iii) The third limb of the argument of Mr. G.N. Shaheen, learned counsel for the appellant, is that the detenue is merely a class 12th passed student, not well versed in English language and the order of detention as well as grounds of detention are only in English that too couched in complicated legal language which he did not understand fully, which has also prevented him from making effective representation to the detaining authority/Government.

(iv) It has been submitted that the executing officer who had allegedly explained the documents to the detenue in Kashmiri and Urdu has not filed any affidavit, as is required under law.

(v) Fourthly, it has been also submitted that detention order does not indicate as to who is the competent authority who passed the detention order.

(vi) Fifthly, it has been submitted that the grounds of detention are vague as they are very general in nature without specifics which can be made against any person, and in view of vagueness of the grounds it was not possible to give a proper and effective representation.

(vii) It has been further submitted that at the time of the passing of the detention order, the detenue was already in judicial custody in connection with FIR No.47/2020 registered under Sections 7/25 I.A. Act and 23, Section 39 UAP Act registered at Police Station Rajpora, and since he did not apply for bail, there was no question of his being released on bail in which event, the question of detaining him by invoking the preventive detention law on the ground that the detenue is likely to be released does not arise, as has been held by a number of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, it has been submitted that apprehension of the detaining authority that he is likely to be released on bail is based on no material and it clearly shows non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority and hence, on this ground alone the detention order cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed.

(viii) It has also been submitted that perusal of the grounds of detention will reveal that it is a cyclostyled copy of the dossier prepared by the police and as such by engaging in a cut and pa